Posted
by
kdawson
on Monday January 14, 2008 @02:04AM
from the still-waiting dept.

DeltaV900 writes to alert us to an auction on eBay of the last Sky Commuter concept car. About 7 hours remain in the auction and the top bid at this writing is $55,100. The seller (with some help from posters in the auction forum) makes clear that the thing won't actually fly, and in fact never did. Other Sky Commuters may have hovered. This one traveled around to air shows and trade fairs.

There's a lot of esoterica in my closets, to be sure--but who would want a failure like this? It'd be like driving a nail into your palm every time you saw it, because you would really, really like a real flying car.

Well, a museum would probably like it, and then every dreamer could go and gawk at it (or in your case - opt for crucifixion - ouch!).

I find it really strange that the seller didn't start by contacting various institutions rather than putting it on ebay. There's something quite fishy about his descriptions - he first tries to suggest that it does actually fly, then tries to say "well, it will hover", and then adds another correction saying HE installed some electric motors and the thing will not generate any lift what-so-ever. He also admits to messing with other parts of the machine (like he was trying to restore it, but doesn't give any real details as to what qualities he was trying to restore to/against).

I know this will sound really harsh - but judging by the guys atrocious writing, the car is better of with ANYBODY else as he's a complete nut.

You are not in the world of exotic and strange cars, this kind of behavior is common. Actually I'm betting the guy is pissed he is only getting the low bids and was expecting a million or more from it. These guys thing they are sitting on a goldmine when in reality they are sitting on a nicely polished turd. Most of these "kitcars" or "custom things" are actually very poorly built or delicate, and if not maintained carefully and kept indoors they end up basket cases.all y ou need to do is look at the cus

It's like, how could someone sell an OS that despite billions in R&D and years of patches would never do what it was intended to? What fool would buy such a thing? I feel sorry for anyone who would invest in such a company.

way back to junior high school when he was hawking these things, then every year or three they'd pop up again, "the wave of the future" blah, blah, blah... I had a roommate that was gonzo over them when he first heard of the concept about 4 years ago. "Oh man, it's going to be so cool, you'll be able to fly to work." etc... He never quite got the reasoning of all the skeptics of the idea, like what happens when you run out of gas or have an accident in the air?
Maybe we can finally put these disasters-in-the-making to rest, until the technology is available to make them something more than a stupid sci-fi pipe dream...

I totally agree with you. Pilots have to be 100% sober, have no criminal records, good sight (without the use of glasses), and pass a billion other tests. Flying around in mid-air is not quite like driving on the road. You have to keep track of wind, other flying vehicles, obstacles - and you have virtually no guidance (like roads). And when you make a mistake, you loose hard. Not only you, in fact, but everyone around you, too.

Flying vehicles are too much of a risk to let them be guided by humans - you have to have some kind of computer controlled system that will mostly operate this thing for you while also keeping track of other vehicles.

There are ideas to bring this kind of design to the road, but they've not matured yet. When we're able to control conventional traffic fully via computer systems, we may start thinking of inventing something flyable. I imagine that, just like with the transition from horses to cars, those flying cars would initially be using conventional roads (perhaps adding another layer on top of them - so we could stack highways instead of ruining the landscape with 6 or 8 lanes of asphalt) and only later have some special 'air-roads' for themselves, when the idea becomes more dominant.

Pilots have to be 100% sober, have no criminal records, good sight (without the use of glasses), and pass a billion other tests. Flying around in mid-air is not quite like driving on the road. You have to keep track of wind, other flying vehicles, obstacles - and you have virtually no guidance (like roads). And when you make a mistake, you loose hard. Not only you, in fact, but everyone around you, too.

That's a great idea, but since pilots won't work for bus driver money, that means the rest of us will have to cycle to work. Sure, you get a really quick commute to the airport, but you'll lose that time in cleaning the blood, mangled spokes and scraps of spandex off of your car.

In the first place, I'd like to clarify. Pilots do not need perfect vision, I've been a pilot for over 25 years, and my uncorrected vision hasn't qualified me to *drive a car* without glasses in all that time. My reliance on glasses for mild myopia and astigmatism wasn't a problem.

Secondly, you *can* get a pilots license for the same qualifications as a driver's license. Not a Private Pilot's license but a Sport Pilot license. In fact, presenting a valid state driver's license plus a signed statement tha

There is a large energy cost just to getting a car/plane airborne. Given that crude oil just hit $100 a barrel for the first time, I doubt the benefits of flying cars will ever justify the costs -- especially when one considers air pollution/greenhouse gas emissions.

Maybe we'll see them for some special applications, like ambulances, where money is no object; but having your own flying car will probably remain a pipe dream due to the

"I totally agree with you. Pilots have to be 100% sober, have no criminal records, good sight (without the use of glasses), and pass a billion other tests."Not exactly. You can wear glasses and get your pilot's license. Also you don't have to pass a billion other tests. Learning to fly isn't all that hard. It is expensive but not all that hard. The FAA has even started to make it cheaper and easier with the new sport pilot license. You can only fly light two place aircraft in good weather but the planes cos

I think it has more to do with there only being one refinery that makes avgas, and the demand a tiny fraction of "mogas".

Yup.

The demand is tiny - to service ptactically all Avgas needs for North America and then some, ONE refinery is needed for just one or two days per year to make the year's worth of avgas demand. Despite how much is flown, it's just a drop in the bucket compared to mogas. In fact, the refinery does exactly that - switch production for a day or two to avgas, then switch back, rather than m

Sorry I should have been a lot more clear. The lead isn't that expensive.The real cost is in the transportation of it. The restrictions on lead are so strong that AV gas can no longer be shipped using pipelines. transporting the stuff costs a lot. Add in the small amount being made each year and you have can see the problems.Current autogas can work but it has a lot of issues. A lot of it is getting alcohol added into it as well as other additives that may cause problems in an airplane.AV gas is being used

I don't know how many of you have a Master's or PhD in Computer Science, but the air traffic control problem is a NP-hard problem. Basically, this means that, in high population areas where you would have thousands of cars flying in all directions, there isn't a computer system in the world that could control all of those cars. Yes, there are solutions that would allow for quite a few cars at one time (SIMD machines with multi-dimensional memory, for example), but I do not beleive that there is a solution a

Ummm, if I remember right, it's 20/20 vision corrected. The military requires 20/20 uncorrected.
The rest I agree with.:)

I've flown a little bit. It's a lot of fun, but even with a few planes in the air, I've seen some almost incidents. Like, what happens when one plane is landing (approach at approx 65 knots), and another plane taxis onto the runway for takeoff... Oh ya, everyone sh1ts themselves.

Yes but many many more people DON'T die when getting into a non-flying car accidents.Immagine if the penalty for running up a curb while putting on your makeup was death? Wow... the wonders we'd do for the gene pool!:) Oh, and sorry to the guy in the other flying car who served as the 'flying curb'. But hey, lrn2dodge, k?

Seriously - just make all flying cars (when we have them, sic) automatic control in any sort of populated area. Automatic controll is far easier when you eliminate the unknowns of oth

Watch those same shows and see the ones where the pilots still managed to land the aircraft, like the one over Iraq that got shot at, or the several cases of where an airliner lost all engine power etc etc. Plenty of cases where real airmanship and seat of the pants flying were called for that could not be delivered by an auto-pilot or a button pusher.

Only a complete and utter moron looks at a routine job when everything is normal and judges how difficult a job is based on that. The entire point of using real humans with serious training as pilots is NOT for when everything is normal but for when the shit hits the fan and all of sudden an airline pilot you think is just a button pusher is in control of a giant glider.

An autopilot can take off, cruise and land, but it can't deal with an emergency and as was shown during an airshow in europe autopilots will happily try to land an airliner in a forest.

The "Autopilot" that landed in a forest was not an autopilot at all, it was the fly-by-wire computer system that overrulled the pilot by decending when he was trying to pull up....The reason we have pilots in aircraft is for the emergencies most commercial flights the autopilot flies the plane for most of the journey and can usually take off and land as well if required, but the pilots are needed to cope with situations the autopilot was not designed for (but this does not mean they can't be designed for th

The "Autopilot" that landed in a forest was not an autopilot at all, it was the fly-by-wire computer system that overrulled the pilot by decending when he was trying to pull up....

Not even that - the Habsheim A320 crash was caused primarily by pilot error, as he both changed his plan of action at the last minute, reduced height to below that of the surrounding obstacles, reduced power below that he would require so he maintained a descent angle, and basically left it too late to do anything about it before he hit the trees. There has never been any evidence to show that the A320s systems caused the accident, despite many conspiracy theories surrounding the case.

The "Autopilot" that landed in a forest was not an autopilot at all, it was the fly-by-wire computer system that overrulled the pilot by decending when he was trying to pull up....

This is a myth.

Read the accident reports - it was pilot error. IIRC he hadn't prepared properly and so was unaware of the high trees at the airpor. He miscalibrated his barometric altimeter and then ignored his radio-altimeter (which is far more accurate at low altitude) thus flying significantly lower over the runway than he had

Watch those same shows and see the ones where the pilots still managed to land the aircraft, like the one over Iraq that got shot at, or the several cases of where an airliner lost all engine power etc etc.

The one that got shot down over Iraq could have landed much easier if it had a computer system that helped them to fly without hydrolics.

This does NOT mean I think flying cars are a good idea. Holding something in the air requires more fuel then not doing so and alone for that it is a bad idea.

Seems to me it's a matter of whether a system's design requirements involves safe landing under bizarre conditions like missing control surfaces. Autopilots aren't designed to do that because their job is to save the pilots for when you need them most.What an expert does in a crisis is draw upon his experience and training. Something that may be, at this date at least, an uniquely human ability is synthesizing a patchwork of skills and experience into something that will do in a crisis never experienced

Well, we know you've never actually flown an airplane before, because you wouldn't be making inane statements like this. Those restrictions aren't there because we're a bunch of snobs trying to hog all the fun; they have them because it's very easy to fuck up flying a plane, and if you do fuck up the consequences are a lot more severe than they would be in a car. Ground controllers don't fly the aircraft; in essence, their job is to make sure planes don't hit each other, which is actually a much bigger ch

Having gone up in a small plane for a lesson as a birthday present, I can honestly say that there is absolutely nothing automatic about flying a plane, especially a small. You're talk thousand, perhaps tens-of-thousands of people flying the equivalent of small planes without any idea how they work or how to handle them in an emergency. System of the damned, indeed! I wouldn't get in a flying car if the sky was the equivalent of the New Jersey Turnpike.

If you were an ex-pilot, then we'd get a different story.. as I do from most ex-pilots I know.. and some active pilots I know who are mature enough to know how little important they are in the normal operation of the aircraft.

Uh huh. And the morse test had nothing to do with trying to keep Ham exclusive. Seriously, for recreational flying there is absolutely no reason to require pilots to have 20-20 vision or any of the other crap. How could I possibly know? Because I know three pilots who have told me that they didn't have 20-20 vision the day they went for their exams, they just faked it. I've met a half dozen pilots who are colour blind and faked their way through the test.As you might have guessed, I don't think I know

While I enjoy both "Mythbusters" and "Air Crash Investigations", I happen to agree with you on the "fucking idiot" part.Pilots are there to deal with stuff the autopilot can't. It's always the unexpected things that crash planes as all the expected ones have been taken care of. The jetliner pilot is there to figure out what the problem is in order to land the plane as safely as possible or die trying.

That said, I see it's inevitable that some automated flight control mechanism will end up helping to make "f

My last car (Holden Commodore ~2002 model) had a problem where the fuel level sender unit would fail in such a way that you'd be out of fuel when the gauge said 1/4 full. Obviously you'd learn to take that into account. The second time.

There is a reason that aircraft are subject to slightly stricter rules than ground based vehicles.

That's just the point. It might be unroadworthy _after_ it developed the fault. But if it developed the fault and the first time it was noticed (eg you ran out of fuel) was 'crossing' (eg flying over) a busy highway, then you can point your finger and say 'unroadworthy' all you like, it won't make any difference.

As it happened, the fault was fixed under warranty (it was apparently a common problem of Commodores of that era)

So my sibling poster mentions that your car is not roadworthy. And whether or not it is, it brings up a good point. Many people drive around in very mechanically unsound vehicles. Now just imagine if all those cars were flying. It would be insane. They'd be dropping out of the sky left right and centre.

It seems like a lot of trouble to go through, when you could solve 99% of the worlds traffic problem with a small sensor on the front of each vehicle to allow the vehicle to sense the movement of the car directly in front of them. This would be useful at red lights. The red light turns green, and all the cars that were stopped at the light, start to move at once. Instead of waiting 10 seconds for the one 10 cars back to start moving, they all start moving instantly, or within a second.

Oddly enough that's what they do in the UK. The lights go green, everyone who can see the traffic light hits the loud pedal, and at least starts to roll. I was slightly astonished to find that Australian drivers don't do this. There again they are so unskillful that they'd probably crash into each other. On the other hand Australians d at least treat the amber light with the contempt it deserves. ObStarman.

Oddly enough that's what they do in the UK. The lights go green, everyone who can see the traffic light hits the loud pedal

It's probably because of the sequencing; it goes from red to red-and-yellow-together for around 1 to 2 seconds before turning green. It's enough time for most competent drivers to get in gear and drop the handbrake.

In Belgium for instance it doesn't work like that, so you basically have to hold it on the clutch and footbrake unless you want some dick to run into you (or at least, hoot

In the U.S. it's not a matter of being forewarned the light is about to change, because that still only works when the driver is paying attention. The problem is the lattes, cellphones, stereos, in dash DVD players, magazines, newspapers, putting on makeup, eating, drinking, conversing, and just general incompetence of drivers.Where I live traffic is really bad, one of the worst places in the U.S., and yet I think traffic could be at least 33%, if not 50% better if drivers would just pay attention and stop

There would still be a delay because the safe distance at 30mph is totally different to the safe distance when stopped. Within a second is completely unrealistic. All it would stop is the idiot who takes 30 seconds to realize that the car in front has gone... but you can get pretty close to optimal already if the queue is seasoned drivers (eg. evenings after work, when the drive once a week crowd aren't usually out).Such systems as you describe are in commercial deployment btw. - it's called adaptive crui

Just like in motor racing (at least those without rolling starts, e.g. Formula One): the lights go green and all the cars accelerate as one... I agree it would be a lot more efficient, but then the grandpa in the car in front of you might not be an F1-driver. If he waits just a bit too long you'll run into him.. Maybe you can just leave more distance to the car in front when stopping. But then again if you notice the car in front of you isn't moving, you brake, and a moment later the car behind you notices

This is a neat concept car. Out of everything I've heard about, the most likely to actually make it to the market is the Terrafugia Transition [terrafugia.com], which is aimed at people who have both drivers' and pilots' licenses. Not VTOL, but more realistic too.

Or, to put it mathematically (without the aid of mathematical symbols or a safety net), auctions are a subset of sales where the price is determined by the highest bidder as opposed to determined before advertising, but sales are not a subset of auctions.

I'm not too up-to-date on my set theory, but are there any weird mathematical instances where A is a subset of B, and B is a subset of A? It seems like it would be impossible, unless A and B are equal sets (and therefore not subsets).

Ha, a flying car is a pretty lame thing to buy on eBay, there are waaay cooler thing you can get. I got a time machine arriving this week, I hope it works better than the teleporter I bought last week tho.

With modern computer control, it should be possible to stabilize a three-fan system like that. What I would wonder though, is how efficient it could be in forward flight, having very little in the way of effective wing area.

One I noted when I looked at the 3-fan design, is that if you have problems with any of th fans, you're in alot of trouble as there is no redundancy (especially for the front fan, but I'd bet it would be extremely unlikely that loss of a rear fan could be compensated for by the other rear fan). Very bad failure mode...

I would say a ballistic parachute is the only answer.I have been an EAA member since I was 12 and that was a long time ago. When people ask me about this or the Skycar I tell them the same thing.Until I see that it flew as Oshkosh it isn't real.

I can't wait to see widespread adoption of flying commuter vehicles. Then we'll get to see public buildings protected from suicide bombers not just by concrete walls or metal fences, but giant cages covering them completely. Or maybe they'll just install flak cannons.

I saw it on TV quite recently. It's from a specialist hovercraft builder in, I think, Illinois who builds small one man hovercraft. He has found that by fitting small wings, he can get ground effect lift (shouldn't that be water effect lift? Oh well) and fly over a lake at an altitude of a meter or so. Over 3 meters you apparently need a pilot's licence. It looks surprisingly similar to this skycar, except that it's red. And either it works or that was the most realistic bit of CGI I have ever seen. And I w

I was in 7th or 8th grade at the time and my dad had a subscription to Sport Aviation. I wrote and received the technical sales information. I always wondered what happened to this product and company. I still have those CAD drawings of the ducted fans and the views of the vehicle. Too bad they couldn't get more traction.On the other hand, I look at the way people drive and shudder to think about any moron flying one of these things. It was an interesting concept, but I don't want my neighbor taking of

There are two fundamental problems with flying cars. First, reciprocating engines aren't quite powerful enough, and small turbojets cost too much. Second, they're unstable. Both problems could be solved, yielding an expensive but workable flying car.

The engine is the big problem. People have been trying to downsize jet engines for decades. Small ones can be built, but once you get below small bizjet size, they don't get much cheaper.
That's why general aviation is still running on pistons.
A flying car in the $2 million range is probably feasible, but the market is limited and the engineering costs are high.

Stability is partly a control system problem and partly an actuator problem. How do you exert attitude control in hover? Adjusting the fan speed of multiple fans is too slow.
Adjusting blade pitch cyclically, like a helicopter, requires cramming all the machinery of a helicopter hub into each fan hub. VTOL jet fighters have been successful, sort of.
The Harrier diverts about 10% of its jet thrust to attitude jets in hover, which yields quick control, but the Harrier has plenty of jet thrust to play with. The F-35 fighter has a steerable nozzle in the tail, a lift fan in the middle, slats under the fan, pitch nozzles in the wings, roll nozzles in the nose, doors to cover all this gear, and enough computer power to manage it. Even with all that, it's a marginal VTOL craft.
The USSR tried several VTOL fighter designs over the years, but none of them worked very well. The Harrier variants are the only real success to date.

The Sky Commuter was an exercise in weight reduction; it weighs about 400 pounds. That's one approach, but it didn't work.

Without reading up on this, I know that this thing must be inoperable (from a practicality standpoint), but still I wonder what kind of insurance policy the owner must put on this thing. Collectables/property insurance is my guess, but imagine how much it would cost if it were insured as an auto or a plane.

You would need a sophisticated autopilot guidance system with traffic detection and a lot of computer control over the flight of the aircar. You would need to discourgage/disable manual control while in flight to keep all aircar traffic flowing in a predictable way/avoid having really nasty accidents because the little old lady piloting the purple air-car forgot her glasses at the bingo parlor...
You need a system that would need to be proven to be safe and reliable for a long time before it gets adopted

When it was 55,000 I could have bid 55,100 and been the highest bidder.

Probably not. l***i [ebay.com] might have set a maximum bid of $1,000,000 and what you see on ebay is the second-highest bid. As soon as you bid $55,100 then all you do is bump up the person who has already outbid you to a slightly higher amount.

Fuck you, too. I did my research, I read everything I could find on this matter, and I'm satisfied. For the record, I have a thirty+ year habit of telling racists where to go and how to get there, whether they're nazis like the stormfronters or the more subtle racists who promote racial discrimination under the name of "affirmative action."